Market Leader Programs
5G Transport - A 2023 Heavy Reading Survey 2023 Open RAN Operator Survey Coherent Optics at 100G, 400G, and Beyond Open RAN Platforms and Architectures Operator Survey Cloud Native 5G Core Operator Survey Bridging the Digital Divide 5G Network Slicing Operator Survey Open, Automated & Programmable Transport The Journey to Cloud Native
Here is the ultimate problem...
If the carriers are not participating in a standard, for whatever reason, and therefore have no corporate ownership invested in that standard, how likely are they to make a corporate effort to implement and deploy that standard when they feel that the standard 'body' has reached its final version in the wrong way (from their point of view)?
I hear you, but I wonder if the actualy problem is somewhat different? In the past, carriers would take many years to roll out new services (examples like ISDN, Frame Relay).
Today they want to roll out new services before the ink is dry on the *drafts*, never mind the standards!
"RFC 2547bis" is not even an RFC, never mind a standard (Internet Standards may take several years to be finalised, just like ITU standards). The original RFC did not contain enough information to build an implementation, and so anyone who isn't Cisco has to reverse-engineer their "BGP-driven, Layer 3 MPLS VPN implementation" to make sure it will interoperate.
The same is true for VPLS today, where we still have an argument going on over LDP vs BGP for tunnel signalling.
And even BGP, one of the foundations of the Internet, and a protocol that's being extended into Layer 2 and Layer 3 VPNs, is not an Internet Standard. In fact, we know that even the IDs are not enough to create a working BGP implementation, you need to employee somebody who worked on the code at Cisco or Juniper.
This is a great situation for the incumbent IP vendors, but it sucks if you're a startup, and one of the repeating themes on these boards is that we all think innovation springs from startups.